LUDICROUS REMARK

Your rebutting remark -- "Regardless of what you think of our drug laws, we
can't see the Supreme Court deciding that a government's responsibility to
regulate is unconstitutional" -- to Tom Pashkov's letter to the editor
which stated Supreme Court justices are out of touch (Dec. 29) is ludicrous.

You got it partly right though, when commenting, "we can't see ..." for
there are none so blind as those who refuse to open their eyes and see.

One would think that such regulatory details depend upon what is being
regulated and in what manner.

What the hell is a Supreme Court good for, if its judges refuse to rule
impartially on the validity of bad, destructive laws?

I'll tell you what they are "good for" by throwing it back to the
parliamentary pit, to rubber-stamp the tyranny and exploitation of a police
state that enforces unjust, unconstitutionally derived laws which falsely
criminalize Canadians.

David d'Apollonia, Dollard Des Ormeaux, Que.

(The law may be nonsense, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional -- and
a court that adjudicates on a whim is no friend to anyone)